Hansen v. South Central District Court et al
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr granting 30 Motion to Quash; granting 30 Motion to Stay; granting 36 Motion to Quash; granting 39 Motion to Quash; granting 40 Motion to Quash; granting 44 Motion to Stay. (ZE) Distributed on 9/26/2017 to pro se parties (cjs).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
David E. Reich, et al.,
Case No. 1-17-cv-55
Before the court are a number of motions filed by various Defendants seeking to quash civil
investigative demands served by Plaintiff Angela Hansen (“Hansen”). (Doc. Nos. 30, 36, 39, 40).
Another motion asks to stay any further discovery pending a scheduling conference. (Doc. No. 44).
Hansen initiated this action following state court rulings granting her ex-husband custody of
their daughter. See Dieterle v. Dieterle, 2016 ND 36, 875 N.W.2d 479; Dieterle v. Dieterle, 2013
ND 71, 830 N.W.2d 571. The Defendants in this matter include individuals working in the North
Dakota state courts, ranging from justices on the North Dakota Supreme Court to state district court
judges to North Dakota attorneys and to North Dakota state court administrative staff, amongst
others. Generally, Hansen’s complaint alleges the Defendants, both individually and in concert,
violated her various constitutional rights in the state court custody proceedings. (Doc. No. 11).
Most of the Defendants have not yet filed their responsive pleadings, with the court granting
the Defendants until October 18, 2017, to do so. (Doc. Nos. 21, 27). While those pleadings remain
outstanding, Hansen served at lease some of the Defendants with what she styled as a “Civil
Investigative Demand Pursuant to 18 USC 1968 and 31 USC 3733." (Doc. No. 31-1) (hereinafter
“the Demands”). The Demands direct the Defendants to produce materials pursuant to the authority
granted “to Angela Hansen as a private attorney general under the provision of 18 USC of the
Federal RICO Act, 18 USC Chapter 96 . . . .” Through various iterations, the Defendants argue the
Demands are an improper attempt to conduct discovery in contravention of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d) and
Hansen lacks standing under 18 U.S.C. § 1968 and 31 U.S.C. § 3733 to serve such demands.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1968(a), the “Attorney General” may, “prior to the institution of a civil
or criminal proceeding thereon, issue . . . a civil investigative demand . . . .” The term “Attorney
General” includes “the Attorney General of the United States, the Deputy Attorney General of the
United States, the Associate Attorney General of the United States, any Assistant Attorney General
of the United States, or any” person so designated by the Attorney General. 18 U.S.C. § 1961.
Similarly, 31 U.S.C. § 3733(a)(1) allows “the Attorney General” or a proper designee to serve civil
investigative demands “before commencing a civil proceeding . . . .”
Other than deeming herself a “private attorney general,” Hansen has not provided any
authority under which she may employ the civil investigative demands allowed for under these two
statutes. Each allows the Attorney General to designate another person as an “Attorney General” for
purposes of the statute, but Hansen has not provided any authority that she should be considered a
designee under either. Without this, the civil investigative demands allowed for under 18 U.S.C. §
1968(a) and 31 U.S.C. § 3733(a)(1) are not available to her.
Hansen’s Demands also fail for improper timing. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1968(a), investigative
demands are available “prior to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding . . . .” Similarly
under 31 U.S.C. § 3733(a)(1), investigative demands are available “before commencing a civil
proceeding under” the chapter. By the plain terms of both statutes, investigative demands are not
available following commencement of a civil or criminal proceeding. Here, Hansen initiated this
action on March 21, 2017. (Doc. No. 1). Hansen dated the Demands at issue on August 30, 2017.
(Doc. No. 31-1). The Demands at issue here are clearly not allowed for under either statute.
Hansen simply cannot use the civil investigative demands at issue here as an end-around of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1). Under this rule, a “party may not seek discovery from any source before the
parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial
disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court
order.” This court, in dealing with other pro se litigants, has said:
With respect to discovery in cases such as this, the court employs the following
protocol. Once the defendants have made an appearance and filed a responsive
pleading, the court will direct the parties to submit proposed scheduling and
discovery plans. Upon receipt and review of these proposed plans, the court shall
issue a scheduling and discovery order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(1). In the interim,
discovery is not generally permitted. Cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1).
Ferrell v. Williams Cty. Sherrifs Office, Case No. 4:14-cv-131, 2014 WL 7404578 at *1 (D.N.D.
December 30, 2014). Only a showing of good cause as to the necessity of early discovery will
warrant departure from this protocol. Simmons v. RPC, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-082, 2014 WL
12605497 at *2 (D.N.D. August 12, 2014). Hansen has not sought leave from the court to seek early
discovery, and the court doubts any valid basis exists that would allow for such.
Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the Defendants’ various motions to quash.
(Doc. Nos. 30, 36, 39, 40). All civil investigative demands served by Hansen on any of the
Defendants are quashed and void. The court also GRANTS the motion to stay discovery. (Doc. No.
44). Discovery shall be stayed until: (1) the court and the parties conduct the planning meeting and
scheduling conference pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b), 26(f); or (2) otherwise ordered by the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of September, 2017.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?